8-year modernization of the B-1B Lancer bomber completed in the USA

The United States Air Force has just completed a major upgrade of its fleet B-1B Lancer, which took eight years. It was announced earlier this month that the modification of the integrated battle stations (IBS) was completed on 60 of the 62 long-range bombers in the United States Air Force's arsenal. The two remaining aircraft are reserved for testing.

In 2012, the US Air Force initiated the latest major modification of its B-1B Lancer long-range bombers. They are expected to be completely decommissioned by 2036.

Roughly 120 shift workers worked more than a million hours at the Oklahoma Aviation Logistics Complex at Tinker Air Force Base, according to the US Air Force.

This upgrade significantly improves the situational awareness of flight crews with color displays, and improved navigation and communication systems are predicted to significantly increase the B-1B's flight readiness.

- said in the release of the commander of the 10th flight test squadron, Lieutenant Colonel James Coach.

All aircraft equipped with modified IBS provide crew members with much greater awareness of surrounding threats, be they air-to-air or surface-to-air threats, and facilitate faster execution of both defensive and offensive maneuvers required in any conflict. ...

- added the head of the 567th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron Rodney Shepard.

The B-1B Lancer is a US Air Force supersonic strategic bomber developed by Rockwell in the 70s and 80s.

Comments

[Uncle lee]

60 of 62 long-range bombers

Impressive ...

[kventinasd]

8-year modernization of the B-1B Lancer bomber completed in the USA

Promptly, the striped ones worked.
In terms of strategists, we are still far behind. And it would be necessary to hurry up.

[Jacket in stock]

We lag behind them a lot.
We have different weight categories.
Our everything is an asymmetric answer.

[kventinasd]

Quote: Jacket in stock

We lag behind them a lot.

And in many places we surpass, for example, in hypersound and air defense-missile defense. For them it is like a sickle in a causal place.
This topic is about long-range aviation.

[Doccor18]

We lag behind them a lot.

It is impossible to dominate everything.
But there are areas where we are confidently ahead.

Our everything is an asymmetric answer.

When three dozen states with a 1,5-yard population are against you, finding a cheap and reliable asymmetric answer is already a victory.

[Vladimir61]

Quote: kventinasd

In terms of strategists, we are still far behind. And it would be necessary to hurry up.

There, too, not everything is as planned. It was created as a strategic carrier of nuclear weapons, and in fact, since the 90s, it has been converted into a carrier of tactical weapons. Everything is trite, did not guess the size. As a result, a "normal" cruise missile does not enter the bomb bay.

On the left is our 160.

[zwlad]

All the same they knew how to build before!
Beautiful birds, what's ours, what's theirs!

[Cruorvult]

Duck and it was designed to break through air defense at low altitudes. As a result, they modernized it, but still only knows how to throw bombs at itself, in the 21st century the B-1 is like a suitcase without a handle.

[Oleg83]

Quote: CruorVult

Duck and it was designed to break through air defense at low altitudes. As a result, they modernized it, but still only knows how to throw bombs at itself, in the 21st century the B-1 is like a suitcase without a handle.

B-1 can carry 24 AGM-158 JASSM missiles

[Sergey Sfiedu]

"As a result, a 'normal' cruise missile does not enter the bomb bays." - Actually it is. Two times less than in the Tu-160, but this is enough. Plus external suspension. It's just that the cold war is over. And cruise missiles can also be launched from B-52s, submarines and destroyers. It turns out much cheaper.

[yehat2]

the reason for the transfer to tactical bombers is that the breakthrough is no longer an effective tactic.
after the s-300 learned to chase the b1 at any altitude, when complexes like the torus and other modern air defense systems began to appear, there is simply no point in using it with nuclear weapons, and the b-52 carries heavy long-range missiles better.

[Old26]

Quote: Vladimir61

There, too, not everything is as planned. It was created as a strategic carrier of nuclear weapons, and in fact, since the 90s, it has been converted into a carrier of tactical weapons. Everything is trite, did not guess the size. As a result, a "normal" cruise missile does not enter the bomb bay.

With the size, namesake, you guessed it. B-1B fell victim to the B-1 political games between presidents. Carter claimed that he was very expensive and was a supporter of the ATV program (i.e. the B-2 bomber). Reagan, on the other hand, relied on B-1B in the short term, and B-2 only in the long term. And this is where the second factor comes into play. The cruise missiles were removed not because they did not fit ("misunderstood the size"), but because the B-2s that entered service led the Americans to exceed the ceilings under strategic agreements. So they donated B-1B, leaving B-2 as a strategist. The new AGM-129A CD was to be deployed on it. Moreover, in the amount of 2500 (the original plan) and 1460 (the second stage of the plan). Therefore, the B-1B were upgraded so that they could not carry either the AGM-129A or AGM-86B type CDs. Namely. external suspension assemblies (6 paired and 1 single) were removed, on which it was possible to place 14 KR type AGM-86В or AGM-129A. The aircraft itself had three bomb compartments 4,57 m long, designed to use the AGM-86A missile (it was canceled due to insufficient range of 1200 km). But the first two compartments were equipped with a sliding partition, which made it possible, instead of 2 compartments of 4,57 meters, to get one compartment 9,53 meters long in which a rotor installation for 4 AGM-129A missiles or 8 AGM-86B missiles could be placed.
By the way, this partition and pylons spoiled blood for a long time under the START treaty.

Quote: CruorVult

Duck and it was designed to break through air defense at low altitudes. As a result, they modernized it, but still only knows how to throw bombs at itself, in the 21st century the B-1 is like a suitcase without a handle.

It is not difficult to modernize it, making again a sliding partition between the compartments and installing external pylons. The question rests on the fact that the number of AGM-86B cruise missiles from the Americans has been reduced (9 parts have been disposed of) and they will only be enough to equip the B-52. That is, they will have to look for options

[Old26]

Quote: oleg83

Quote: CruorVult

Duck and it was designed to break through air defense at low altitudes. As a result, they modernized it, but still only knows how to throw bombs at itself, in the 21st century the B-1 is like a suitcase without a handle.

B-1 can carry 24 AGM-158 JASSM missiles

Oleg! rocket AGM-158 is not strategic ...

[Oleg83]

Quote: Old26

Quote: oleg83

Quote: CruorVult

Duck and it was designed to break through air defense at low altitudes. As a result, they modernized it, but still only knows how to throw bombs at itself, in the 21st century the B-1 is like a suitcase without a handle.

B-1 can carry 24 AGM-158 JASSM missiles

Oleg! rocket AGM-158 is not strategic ...

I know. It's just that some write that B-1 cannot carry any missiles at all
And on the basis of AGM-158, you can make a strategic missile, with a range of 2500-3000 km (under Obama, Congress constantly canceled such programs)

[Sergey Sfiedu]

"The AGM-158 missile is not strategic" - well, so officially the United States does not have strategic aviation. Strategic tasks are being addressed by ICBMs and SLBMs - and rightly so.

[Old26]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

"The AGM-158 missile is not strategic" - well, so officially the United States does not have strategic aviation. Strategic tasks are being addressed by ICBMs and SLBMs - and rightly so.

Sergei! Do the B-52 and B-2 belong to tactical aviation?

[Sergey Sfiedu]

Well, where will you take the aircraft used for close air support and escorting convoys? And B-52 and B-1B are mainly engaged in this. Even B-2s are being recruited to attack the Taliban. Formally, strategic aviation was transferred to the Tactical Aviation Command in 1992 in connection with the liquidation of the Strategic Aviation Command - so yes, for almost two decades, these aircraft could well be considered heavy tactical bombers. With the B-1, nuclear weapons were removed, most of the B-52s capable of carrying ACLM missiles were sent to the reserve, and the B-2 does not carry nuclear cruise missiles (and its ability to overcome strong air defenses is in doubt) - what kind of strategists are they? True, in 2009, the Americans came to their senses and created the Global Aviation Command, but so far the nuclear capabilities of the "strategists" remain the same, and they are mainly used in the same way for tactical purposes.

[Old26]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

Well, where will you take the aircraft used for close air support and escorting convoys? And B-52 and B-1B are mainly engaged in this. Even B-2 is involved in strikes against the Taliban

Based on your logic, Sergey, our strategists TU-95, TU-160 and long-range aircraft TU-22M3 can also be classified as tactical aviation. After all, they sometimes carry out work of a tactical level, striking the positions of illegal armed groups in Syria, for example. Such strikes cannot be called strategic.

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

Formally, strategic aviation was transferred to the Tactical Aviation Command in 1992 in connection with the liquidation of the Strategic Aviation Command - so yes, for almost two decades, these aircraft could well be considered heavy tactical bombers.

Not certainly in that way. In 1992, the Strategic Aviation Command Air force The United States has actually been abolished. And its functions were transferred to the Combat Aviation Command. Where structurally included the US Air Force SAC and the tactical air command. But dual subordination remained (Strategic Command Sun Nobody liquidated the USA). In 2009, the subordination changed again. The Air Force Global Strikes Command was organized, to which some of the functions of the US Air Force LHC (strategic aviation and ICBMs) and the US Space Command were transferred.
And all the same, the division into strategic and tactical weapons and delivery vehicles primarily implies the delivery range (with all the desire, for example, tactical aviation is not capable of making intercontinental flights and delivering strikes at such a range) and secondly, the range of tasks to be solved (and here strategic aviation can also be involved in solving tactical problems)

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

With the B-1, nuclear weapons have been removed, most of the B-52s capable of carrying ACLM missiles have been sent to the reserve, and the B-2 does not carry nuclear cruise missiles (and its ability to overcome strong air defenses is questionable) - what kind of strategists are they?

Cruise missiles of the AGM-1B and AGM-86A types were removed from the B-129. Due to the fact that if they had not been removed, then the ceilings of the agreements would have been exceeded (I wrote about this just above).
B-52 - modification B-52G was actually partially sent to the reserve, and partially liquidated, again according to the contracts. Now the Americans are able to restore the EMNIP about 20-25 carriers of this modification from those in storage. Some of the B-52N machines were re-profiled to deliver non-nuclear strikes (the electronics, sighting systems were replaced, and the ability to use WTO was obtained)
The B-2A was planned to use AGM-129A missiles. Since they were removed from service, only bombs remained. But this did not stop the aircraft from being a strategic bomber. The US is now planning a new air-launched missile to replace the AGM-86B. It is possible that both B-2 and promising B-3 (B-21) will carry it.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

Let's just define what are "strategic" objectives for aviation? Impo, this is the kind of strikes that can change the course of the war. In WWII, heavy bombers carried out strategic bombing with conventional bombs, but now this is hardly possible. JASSM are unlikely to be able to quickly and dramatically change the course of the war. Our Tu95 and Tu160 sometimes perform tactical tasks, but their main purpose is precisely the delivery of nuclear strikes with cruise missiles against enemy territory. The task is strategic. For the American B-1B and B-52, the main job, on the contrary, is striking with conventional means of destruction, clearly not a strategic task. Therefore, for now, it is more correct to call them long-range or heavy, and not strategic. However, the point is, of course, not in the name, but in the fact that the United States, unlike Russia, actually crossed out aviation from the strategic triad. Regarding the liquidation of the AGM-86 KR according to the 2002 Moscow Treaty, there is some deceit. The agreement did not require the liquidation of the CD. The Air Force was armed with 1140 AGM-86 and 460 AGM-129. The United States quite voluntarily chose to decommission most of its ALCMs, leaving only 528 ancient AGM-86s, retaining even a certain number of free-fall nuclear bombs - a very eloquent illustration of how the United States treated its strategic bombers. As for the B-2, I am somewhat at a loss how this wunderwaffle thinks to fight the VHF radar, of which there are quite a few both in our country and in other countries. You can, of course, drown them out with electronic warfare, but then stealth, their main advantage, will disappear.
Well, yes, now our efforts to unwind a new round of the nuclear arms race seem to have been crowned with success, and the Americans may create new nuclear ALCMs and put them on their heavy bombers.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

P.S. Returning to the question of whether the B-1B is a tactical bomber - in the United States at one time the possibility of decommissioning the A-10 attack aircraft was seriously considered. One of the arguments was that the B-52 and B-1 perform their tasks perfectly. They chased the "strategists" like sidor goats, sparing no resource.